On June 13, 2024 thus sayeth Dhruva Gole:
> On Jun 12, 2024 at 18:17:35 -0500, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
> > More speed grades for the AM62Px SoC family have been defined which
> > unfortunately no longer align with the AM62x table. So create a new
> > table with these new speed grades defined for the AM62Px
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bryan Brattlof <bb@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> > index a80698f3cfe65..6c84562de5c6b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> > @@ -69,6 +69,13 @@ enum {
> > #define AM62A7_SUPPORT_R_MPU_OPP BIT(1)
> > #define AM62A7_SUPPORT_V_MPU_OPP BIT(2)
> >
> > +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_O_MPU_OPP 15
> > +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_S_MPU_OPP 19
> > +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_U_MPU_OPP 21
> > +
> > +#define AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP BIT(0)
> > +#define AM62P5_SUPPORT_U_MPU_OPP BIT(2)
> > +
> > #define VERSION_COUNT 2
> >
> > struct ti_cpufreq_data;
> > @@ -134,6 +141,23 @@ static unsigned long omap3_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
> > return BIT(efuse);
> > }
> >
> > +static unsigned long am62p5_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
> > + unsigned long efuse)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long calc_efuse = AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP;
>
> This and he earlier patch, why not continue using the name convention
> calculated_efuse like in am625 and dra ?
>
For whatever reason I've been more of a minimalist when it comes to
naming stack variables. Single letters are just as good as full
sentences ;)
I'll use the full name next round
~Bryan
